Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

No.. it is very different. Rome still existed when the popes where exiled to france. constantinople no longer exist.

How so. Last time I checked, Constantinople still existed, Orthodox still called it Constantinople. Oh but wait...things have changed, right? It's not the same Constantinople it was say, 1000 years ago. But alas, "Rome" is not the same "Rome" it was 1000 years ago either.

Quote

why are we turning this thread into a ponting finger fiasco. I knew that this was going to be done.

Not only has the city changed in name but in everything. culture, religion and national origin. it is not only a name change as you say. if it far more than that.

Rome used to be a pagan capital, where most of the hoi poloi spoke Greek, their "betters" spoke Latin, and where a culturally and ethnically semitic Bishop oversaw a growing flock composed of slaves, common folk, members of the Senate, and even members of the Emperor's house.

Does that sound much like the institution situated in the sovereign city state of the Vatican (carved out of a piece of Rome, which is currently the capital of yet another more modern country, Italy, which has gone through many changes in government) which only speaks a language very vaguely resembling Latin, in which almost the entire population is nominally Roman Catholic (though only a minory are regular Church goers)?

This reminds me of your absurd arguments against the East Roman Empire being in fact "Roman." Simply put, you're being a label queen.

First, orthodoxy was never the religion of Rome. orthodoxy was/is the religion of the east NOT the west.

I am not making no exception whatsoever. one city remained christian while the other became a muslim stronghold.

As for your last comment... I highly doubt it. europeans are very concience of what/whom they are.

well, lets look at some demographics. To maintain a steady population, you need a birthrate of 2.1 children per family. Italian families average 1.2 with less than one per family in Rome and the other large cities. Therefore within 50 years Italy will have on average 3 times as many Retirees as workers. They will need to import from somewhere. Other European countries are facing similar problems. Their solution has been to invite millions of Muslims into Europe who reproduce at a rate of about 6-7 children per family. Sad to say, withiin 100 years you will not be able to tell the difference between the cultures of italy, spain and france on one hand and Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia on the other. Numbers don't lie man.

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.

I still say this dude is a troll. No one is this thick or likes to argue this much over such trivialities.

This is my hypothesis as well.

Joe Zollars

=======

As it is mine! This person is not interested in dialogue just getting in the last word.

Orthodoc

Wow, Orthodoc. If that's what qualifies as a troll, then I know lots of 'em. Here in the middle of Reformation-Land, we're always disagreeing over trivialities and I'm always wrong, since I'm a 'lapsed' Protestant.

I like to think of myself as a Protestant in the truest sense of the word, though: I've protested the excesses of Rome by returning to the Apostolic Church.

lol! welcome to the club Josh! I like to think of myself as being a Reformer--Reforming my life and theology to be in line and in the Orthodox Church.

But seriously, what we are talking about in regards to RB is simply that all he does is come here, post something totally off the wall with no basis in fact, insult anyone who disagrees with him, hurl a few slanders around, and generally refuse to answer points made against his argument. For instance in one of his posts on the first page of this thread, he said it should no longer be called "Patriarch of Antioch" because the patriarch resides in Damascas. Then when someone pointed out that this argument was false because for a lenghty period of time the "pope" of Rome was in Avingnon and not in Rome. Then instead of changing his position, he brings in Istanbull out of the woodwork to try and make some other point and hurl some more insults.

Add this to his earlier trackrecord (i.e. bragging that he was recieving communion in Orthodox Churches he attended with his cousins by marriage and not telling the Priest he is not Orthodox, etc. ) leads many of us to believe he is a troll.

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.

lol! welcome to the club Josh! I like to think of myself as being a Reformer--Reforming my life and theology to be in line and in the Orthodox Church.

But seriously, what we are talking about in regards to RB is simply that all he does is come here, post something totally off the wall with no basis in fact, insult anyone who disagrees with him, hurl a few slanders around, and generally refuse to answer points made against his argument. For instance in one of his posts on the first page of this thread, he said it should no longer be called "Patriarch of Antioch" because the patriarch resides in Damascas. Then when someone pointed out that this argument was false because for a lenghty period of time the "pope" of Rome was in Avingnon and not in Rome. Then instead of changing his position, he brings in Istanbull out of the woodwork to try and make some other point and hurl some more insults.

Add this to his earlier trackrecord (i.e. bragging that he was recieving communion in Orthodox Churches he attended with his cousins by marriage and not telling the Priest he is not Orthodox, etc. ) leads many of us to believe he is a troll.

Joe Zollars

Point to constantinople on a map for me Joe?

I insult people!!!!!!!! who are the ones calling people names? you guys are acting like protestants and jews.

RomanByzantium,How so. Last time I checked, Constantinople still existed, Orthodox still called it Constantinople. Oh but wait...things have changed, right? It's not the same Constantinople it was say, 1000 years ago. But alas, "Rome" is not the same "Rome" it was 1000 years ago either. :)I can't stand passive aggressive people.

Seraphim

really constantinople still exist? point it to me on a map.

rome exists...........constantinople does not. that is the difference. oh wait, New york is really new amsterdam. NOT!!!!

I still contend that your entire argument, if it is based solely on names (as you seem to imply by your posts), is utterly laughable...stupid, to the layman. If you seriously think, for example, that my mom became a different entity by changing her name on her new US passport (upon being naturalised) from what it was on her Green Card, then I give up, I really do.

RomanByzantium,Rome used to be a pagan capital, where most of the hoi poloi spoke Greek, their "betters" spoke Latin, and where a culturally and ethnically semitic Bishop oversaw a growing flock composed of slaves, common folk, members of the Senate, and even members of the Emperor's house.

Does that sound much like the institution situated in the sovereign city state of the Vatican (carved out of a piece of Rome, which is currently the capital of yet another more modern country, Italy, which has gone through many changes in government) which only speaks a language very vaguely resembling Latin, in which almost the entire population is nominally Roman Catholic (though only a minory are regular Church goers)?

This reminds me of your absurd arguments against the East Roman Empire being in fact "Roman." Simply put, you're being a label queen.

Seraphim

That is right seraphin.... ROME was pagan and turned christian and it still remains. I wish that I could say the same for constantinople. If you wish to reminisce about constantinople.... who am I to argue.

easter empire was roman until it became hellinized. it is in the books.

I still contend that your entire argument, if it is based solely on names (as you seem to imply by your posts), is utterly laughable...stupid, to the layman. If you seriously think, for example, that my mom became a different entity by changing her name on her new US passport (upon being naturalised) from what it was on her Green Card, then I give up, I really do.

Happy feast day of Saint Alexis Toth, btw.

It is not only name. It is religion, people and culture. it is a muslim city in a muslim country.

Do you believe that NEW YORK is really New Amsterdam? please answer this question for me?

It's the same territory, isn't it? The name has changed, but it's still where it used to be.

And, since you're big on this whole culture thing, I'd appreciate it if you would go through the differences between English and Dutch cultures at the time when control of the area changed hands. I honestly don't know much about this, and my (perhaps ignorant) guess would ordinarily be that, aside from language and denomination, it's basically the same culture.

It's the same territory, isn't it? The name has changed, but it's still where it used to be.

And, since you're big on this whole culture thing, I'd appreciate it if you would go through the differences between English and Dutch cultures at the time when control of the area changed hands. I honestly don't know much about this, and my (perhaps ignorant) guess would ordinarily be that, aside from language and denomination, it's basically the same culture.

It is not the same culture nor are they the same people. The dutch and english are very different people's.

Personally, I think you guys are taking this a little far, but I'm very willing to be corrected as I'm no scholar.

New Amsterdam, as far as I know, was not a major place of authority and reverence to the Church. Hence, its name change can be tolerated and accepted. But when something happens to a centrally Orthodox city like Constantinople, it would make sense that the people would try their hardest to maintain its originality, even if it has changed. The least they can do is call it by its original proper name, a name dear to them, instead of a somewhat "desacrated" name. (I'm bad at history, so I don't know precisely what happened, I'm just assuming its something bad that lead to Constantinople becoming Istanbul.)

Personally, I think you guys are taking this a little far, but I'm very willing to be corrected as I'm no scholar.

New Amsterdam, as far as I know, was not a major place of authority and reverence to the Church. Hence, its name change can be tolerated and accepted. But when something happens to a centrally Orthodox city like Constantinople, it would make sense that the people would try their hardest to maintain its originality, even if it has changed. The least they can do is call it by its original proper name, a name dear to them, instead of a somewhat "desacrated" name. (I'm bad at history, so I don't know precisely what happened, I'm just assuming its something bad that lead to Constantinople becoming Istanbul.)

But of course, this is just what I can reason out.

Kim

Yeah... the Muslim conquerors did what all conquerors do. They destroy, rename, introduce their religion and culture until very little of the old remains. This is how constantinople became Instabul.

All the great empires( spanish, english, romans, etc) have done it. The Romans did it to all the people that they conquered.

Greeks are from the Mediterranean, Russians are farther north, their languages are different, etc., etc. To me, all these things caused them to develop differently, and so they are different cultures.

The Dutch and the English, however, are inhabitants of lands in the same general vicinity, share a common religion (Protestantism, if I'm not mistaken), and their languages (again, if I'm not mistaken) may be related. If this is true, then I would think they are more alike than different. I readily grant that I might be wrong on this, but as I said, I don't know, and was hoping you'd tell me more than "yeah, they're different".

Greeks are from the Mediterranean, Russians are farther north, their languages are different, etc., etc. To me, all these things caused them to develop differently, and so they are different cultures.

The Dutch and the English, however, are inhabitants of lands in the same general vicinity, share a common religion (Protestantism, if I'm not mistaken), and their languages (again, if I'm not mistaken) may be related. If this is true, then I would think they are more alike than different. I readily grant that I might be wrong on this, but as I said, I don't know, and was hoping you'd tell me more than "yeah, they're different".

Don't ever tell an Englishman that his culture and religion and similar to the Dutch.

Spain, france, italy greece, middle east are all from the mediterranean and look at how different culturally they are.

I personally see more similarity than difference in the cultures of Spain, France, and Italy as one group, Greece and the Middle East as another group, and the English and Dutch and whoever else should be in there as yet a third group. But I will cease pushing the culture point, since I'm not very well versed on the history and cultures of the peoples of Europe, and even if I was, I doubt you'd agree.

Anyway, you are not really addressing the issue. You start with the fact that the names are different, and when that is shown to be a useless basis on which to claim that the entities are different, you go into the whole culture thing. For me, this is all about land. Furthermore, it seems like you mistakenly believe that Orthodox completely do not accept "Istanbul" as a reality. I think they do, but they refer to their EP as that of Constantinople. Why that is a problem for you, a member of a Church which still appoints men to be auxiliary bishops of existing dioceses and gives them the titles of sees which have been defunct for hundreds of years, and canonically enjoins them to offer the Mass on occasion for the welfare of their "diocese", is beyond me.

I personally see more similarity than difference in the cultures of Spain, France, and Italy as one group, Greece and the Middle East as another group, and the English and Dutch and whoever else should be in there as yet a third group. But I will cease pushing the culture point, since I'm not very well versed on the history and cultures of the peoples of Europe, and even if I was, I doubt you'd agree.

Anyway, you are not really addressing the issue. You start with the fact that the names are different, and when that is shown to be a useless basis on which to claim that the entities are different, you go into the whole culture thing. For me, this is all about land. Furthermore, it seems like you mistakenly believe that Orthodox completely do not accept "Istanbul" as a reality. I think they do, but they refer to their EP as that of Constantinople. Why that is a problem for you, a member of a Church which still appoints men to be auxiliary bishops of existing dioceses and gives them the titles of sees which have been defunct for hundreds of years, and canonically enjoins them to offer the Mass on occasion for the welfare of their "diocese", is beyond me.

I am the only one addressing the issue here. You guys haven't shown it to be useless.. of course you guys are going to say that.

As you can see the names are different for a purpose. conquerors do that and we all know what that purpose is. we are not discussing a name change within a christian context but of one of fundemantality different religion and culture.

Nor did I say that it was a name change alone, but a city that doesn't longer exists and then I gave you the facts that supporst this claim.

If the roman church does the same please provide me with an example. and if they do then they too are in denial.

I note that the diocese you cited is a currently operating diocese, and not a titular see, which is what I am talking about, but your example is also good. I notice that, while the diocese you cite is called, in English, the Archeparchy of Istanbul (Armenian), in Latin, it is called Constantinopolitanus Armenorum. Surely the language which gave us Archidioecesis Neo-Eboracensis for the Archdiocese of New York is smart enough to give us a latinised form of Istanbul, isn't it? Why stick to a name of the past, which has been supplanted by conquerors of another religion and culture?

I note that the diocese you cited is a currently operating diocese, and not a titular see, which is what I am talking about, but your example is also good. I notice that, while the diocese you cite is called, in English, the Archeparchy of Istanbul (Armenian), in Latin, it is called Constantinopolitanus Armenorum. Surely the language which gave us Archidioecesis Neo-Eboracensis for the Archdiocese of New York is smart enough to give us a latinised form of Istanbul, isn't it? Why stick to a name of the past, which has been supplanted by conquerors of another religion and culture?

lets see the definition of defunct:

1. not operating now: no longer operative, valid, or functional2. dead: no longer alive or in existence

From where do you get the information that all those in latin america and western euorpe are defunct when these are heavily catholic areas?

Umm... You are aware that the catholic faith was in the americas long before the english came and even within those protestant colonies. we are still talking about christians here not another foreign religion.

and for your last comment they should change it. remember the reminiscing i told you about.

also, what is a titular bishop and how are they different? and how do you know if they are defunct? where does it say that?

also, i read somewhere that istanbul is turkish name for byzantium and not constantinople.

But, I got this from the catholic encyclopedia.

Thus was granted the sacrilegious prayer of so many Greeks, blinded by unreasoning hate, that henceforth, not the tiara, but the turban should rule in the city of Constantine. Even the name of the city was changed. The Turks call it officially (in Arabic) Der-es-Saadet, Door of Happiness, or (chiefly on coins) Konstantinieh. Their usual name for it is Stamboul, or rather Istamboul, a corruption of the Greek expression eis ten polin (pronounced stimboli), perhaps under the influence of a form, Islamboul, which could pass for "the city of Islam". Most of the churches, like St. Sophia, were gradually converted into mosques. This was the fate of SS. Sergius and Bacchus -- a beautiful monument built by Justinian, commonly called "the little St. Sophia"; of the church of the monastery of Khora, whose splendid mosaics and pictures, mostly of the fourteenth century, are among the principal curiosities of the city; of the churches of the celebrated Pantocrator and Studium monasteries, etc. Other churches were demolished and replaced by various buildings; thus the church of the Holy Apostles gave way to the great mosque built by the conquering Sultan Mohammed II. The imperial tombs in this church were violated; some of their gigantic red porphyry sarcophagi were taken to the church of St. Irene. The latter is the only church taken from the Greeks that has not been changed into a mosque or demolished; it became, and is yet an arsenal, or rather a museum of ancient weapons.

That is right seraphin.... ROME was pagan and turned christian and it still remains. I wish that I could say the same for constantinople. If you wish to reminisce about constantinople.... who am I to argue.

easter empire was roman until it became hellinized. it is in the books.

Actually, somewhat specialize in this area of history. That halph of hte empire always spoke greek, except for a few elite who only spoke Latin while with other elite or in Rome. Ceaser himself spoke greek when at school in Athens. Sorry, but history confirms that Greece was never non-Greek (or non-hellenic if you prefer such terms).

BTW, just how many people in Rome today are Christian? right. Once again your utterly illogical argument falls flat.

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.